Re: RFC - OOP and Turing machines

Patterns are collections of objects, so to understand patterns, you need to understand Object-Oriented Programming (OOP).

That's odd, my copy of A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander and Sara Ishikawa and Murray Silverstein. New York, NY., Oxford University Press, 1977., doesn't say anything about Object-Oriented Programming! You might want to either show us the missing portion of your work or qualify such statements, since they don't stand too well on their own.

–hsm

"Never try to teach a pig to sing…it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

Comment on Re: RFC - OOP and Turing machines

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: RFC - OOP and Turing machines by mstone (Deacon) on Jan 05, 2002 at 05:27 UTC
Got it on my bookshelf, along with a couple others from the same series. It's an excellent book, very readable, and IMO absolutely indispensable for anyone who wants to make a career in architecture or civil planning. I don't know how much I agree with Alexander's opinion that ultralightweight concrete is the future of residential construction, but I do like his writing style. You can also find books on business and management (Anti-Patterns (Brown et al., John Wiley & Sons) springs to mind) that use the term 'pattern' to discuss business processes and human interaction. Nor should we forget the fields of knitting and metal casting. I don't know of any significant body of work within the literature of computer programming that uses 'pattern' exclusively of OOP, though. Design Patterns (Gamma et al.) and various papers in PLoPD 1-4 (Addison-Wesley, various authors, various editors) cite APL as a source of inspiration, but then use 'pattern' to refer to collections of objects without additional qualification. UML and its associated literature don't even mention APL as far as I know, but UML clearly contains notation for patterns. I intend to cite APL in my chapter on patterns (the above is from the chapter on OOP), so I should end up being consistent with established usage.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: RFC - OOP and Turing machines
by mstone (Deacon) on Jan 05, 2002 at 05:27 UTC

Got it on my bookshelf, along with a couple others from the same series. It's an excellent book, very readable, and IMO absolutely indispensable for anyone who wants to make a career in architecture or civil planning. I don't know how much I agree with Alexander's opinion that ultralightweight concrete is the future of residential construction, but I do like his writing style.

You can also find books on business and management (Anti-Patterns (Brown et al., John Wiley & Sons) springs to mind) that use the term 'pattern' to discuss business processes and human interaction. Nor should we forget the fields of knitting and metal casting. I don't know of any significant body of work within the literature of computer programming that uses 'pattern' exclusively of OOP, though.

Design Patterns (Gamma et al.) and various papers in PLoPD 1-4 (Addison-Wesley, various authors, various editors) cite APL as a source of inspiration, but then use 'pattern' to refer to collections of objects without additional qualification. UML and its associated literature don't even mention APL as far as I know, but UML clearly contains notation for patterns. I intend to cite APL in my chapter on patterns (the above is from the chapter on OOP), so I should end up being consistent with established usage.

[reply]